Re: statement on creationism?

George Murphy (""
Mon, 22 Nov 1999 08:53:21 -0500

Dick Fischer wrote:
> Allan Harvey wrote:
> >Before my name gets associated with such an oncology effort, let me agree
> >with what George Murphy said yesterday. The young-Earth view itself
> >(while I believe it to be incorrect) is not nearly as much of a problem
> >as the view of many who hold it that it is the *only* acceptable
> >Christian view.
> What I believe is necessary is to take a public stance that while there may
> be a number of possibilities or alternatives we could consider, YEC isn't
> one of them. YEC is unacceptable as a viable Christian method of apology.
> To state that YEC is not the only acceptable Christian view serves to
> legitimize it. It would be tantamount to saying that Christianity is not
> the only acceptable religion.

I will argue as strongly as possible against the YEC view on both scientific
and theological grounds. Moreover, I agree that as science it is simply wrong & ought
not be taught as a currently viable scientific theory. But we simply cannot say that
as theology it is heretical to hold this view. While the Bible & the church's tradition
are certainly open to an old universe and an evolutionary understanding of life, these
are not positions required by Scripture.
IF Christians can be brought to understand that evolution can be understood in a
ways which are compatible with basic Christian beliefs about creation, sin, &
redemption, then attempts to butress YEC views with scientific arguments will lose their
purpose & fade away. But this will not happen if we cut off contact with YECs by
declaring their position heretical.

George L. Murphy